Select Committee Statements
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(5 days, 22 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Following my earlier point of order, I received an email from Conservative party headquarters. It contained a picture of an email that the Conservatives say that they sent to me ahead of the Leader of the Opposition’s visit to my constituency. Although I have never seen that email, and we have seen no evidence of it in my inbox, I feel that I should give them the benefit of the doubt about it having been sent. I have suggested that the Conservative party uses parliamentary email addresses in future to ensure that emails get to the correct people at the correct time. [Official Report, 28 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 838.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. She will know that that is not a matter for the Chair, but she has put that correction on the record.
Business of the House
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I want to continue to highlight the importance of local railways—an issue that has already been raised by the hon. Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan). This year is the 200th anniversary of Scotland’s first modern railway, the Monkland and Kirkintilloch line. It opened in 1826, just months after Stockton and Darlington became the first passenger railway in the world to use steam trains, and it is the first railway in Scotland to be authorised by Act of Parliament to use steam trains for both passengers and goods. The community in my constituency is celebrating with exhibitions, talks and a guided walk in Whitegates Park, which is named after the level crossing where the line approached the Forth and Clyde canal, delivering Monkland coal to barges destined for Edinburgh. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Don Martin, an eminent local historian who has researched and championed the heritage of the line for decades, and will he consider coming north—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady has been here long enough to know that questions cannot be that long.
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly congratulate everyone involved in the commemoration of the Monkland railway. It is, from the hon. Lady’s account, one of the oldest lines, and I know how important such lines are from knowledge of my region, where the first railways were developed—similarly to hers—for work on the coalfield. I congratulate everybody involved in that railway, and I hope that their celebrations are successful.
Modernisation Committee Report: Access to the House of Commons
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the Leader of the House to move the motion, I point out that live British Sign Language interpretation of the debate is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for his remarks, and fully echo both their detail and their sentiment. As he says, accessibility should never be an afterthought. In the case of the House of Commons, there is not just the common decency that goes with trying to support anyone with a disability or another need. A vital aspect of being an effective parliamentarian is that every single Member of Parliament, whatever their background and personal needs, should be able to discharge their full capabilities on behalf of their constituents. That is why it is so central to what we do as a House.
Let me join the Leader of the House in welcoming the report. I also very much welcome the response from the House Administration, which is a very constructive document, by and large. We on the Committee are grateful for the constructive way in which the House Administration engaged with our concerns all the way through. I pay tribute not just to the current and previous members of the Committee, but to the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), and indeed to the current Leader of the House for steering this ship home to port.
I have a couple of reflections to add on this topic. Of course, when we think about accessibility, it is very easy just to think of physical changes to the structure of the House of Commons, but the Leader of House was absolutely right to think about not just Members but visitors, staff and people who use this building in many different ways, and about accessibility in relation to the public’s understanding of what we are trying to do.
There is a tradition in British political thought that the House of Commons should have not merely an efficient aspect to it, as Bagehot would put it, but a dignified aspect to it and even a certain mystique. I think there is some truth to that—as a Conservative, I would say that, wouldn’t I? There is some benefit to sticking with procedures that have proven their worth, even if it requires a little bit of effort to understand them. As a result, I would be very suspicious and concerned, on behalf of the House as an institution, about anything that I thought was dumbing down, but I do not think that is what is at stake here. What is at stake here are intelligent simplifications of language and presentation that allow Members to understand from the get-go how they can contribute constructively and effectively to what we are doing. Although the changes that were put through by previous House Administration officials in relation to the Order Paper did not come out of this process, I think that they were very constructive and helpful. The Order Paper is now unrecognisably better than what it was when I entered Parliament just a few years ago.
Let me say a couple of other things. The report mentions restoration and renewal, and it is important to keep these two things separate. The House will know that I am an extreme sceptic on the restoration and renewal process. The content of what is being proposed is poorly conceived, and there is a lack of a fixed budget. I am also sceptical about the process that has been followed and the lack of what I consider genuinely effective governance, but it is important to recognise that the report talks about that in order to reflect the importance of accessibility to that process. Whatever decision the House makes on restoration and renewal—I hope it will go for a drastically different version of what we are talking about—it will respect the need for full accessibility to this House and the House of Lords. I do not think that is on the table or up for negotiation at all, but one key point is that when we discuss this, we should not regard restoration and renewal as any substitute—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I gently point out to the shadow Leader of the House, and to anybody else planning on contributing, that this is not a debate on restoration and renewal. Although reference to it is of course acceptable, perhaps the substance of Members comments’ should not focus on that.
Jesse Norman
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am afraid you may have been slightly misled by your officials. The report mentions restoration and renewal, and specifically refers to it as something that the Committee was invited to look forward to. Therefore, it is not inappropriate to mention it.
The specific point that I am making, if I am allowed to make it, is that we should not defer changes out of an expectation that restoration and renewal, whatever it may be, will be a panacea; we should be getting on with changes as soon as they can be made. One of the things that is so attractive about the work that the House Administration did in responding to the report, and to the Committee, was the energetic way in which it started the process of making changes when they were pointed out. I remember the director general coming forward with several hundred potential changes that could be made, and on which the House Administration had started to make progress.
Whatever the future may bring, let there be no delay in making this House as genuinely open and accessible as it possibly can be. Let me congratulate everyone on all the work that has been done so far, the officials who have made it happen and the Committee.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I declare my interest as a member of the Modernisation Committee, but also as the chair of both the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users and the APPG on access to disability equipment. I come at this issue from that perspective. As many Members know, I am the parent of a wheelchair user and have campaigned on both accessibility and Changing Places toilets, and I will refer to those during my contribution.
Shortly after my election to this place, I asked a series of questions. I have twin daughters, one of whom can access the building, but the other cannot access it in the way that we all can. What if she were to come here, and what are the most easily defined routes around the building? I was very lucky, because I had an accessibility tour, but I will continue to say that those routes are not easily defined for staff or visitors. For visitors, what are the most accessible routes around the building to get from A to B? We need to continue to look at that. If a Member is arranging an event, what are the main access routes for somebody who is a wheelchair user or who has different access needs?
In the report—I was not a member of the Modernisation Committee when the report was undertaken, but I am now—there are recommendations about external accessibility. In my role as chair of both groups, but particularly as chair of the APPG for wheelchair users, we continue to have problems. A significant number of wheelchair users attend our meetings, but there is only a very small number of rooms in this building that we can book. The Chair of the Administration Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney (Nick Smith), is very aware of this—we have written and spoken to each other about it at length—but under the booking system’s current procedures, the APPG cannot be given priority over others, which proves very difficult when only a very small number of rooms are available. It also proves very difficult when we try to provisionally book a room, and the only room our users can use is booked by somebody else. We do need, through the Administration Committee, to look at our booking system procedures.
My hon. Friend is also aware that the APPG for wheelchair users held an event last month at which the majority of speakers were wheelchair users, yet we managed to set up a podium for the speakers to give their speeches from. Reluctantly, we then had to dismantle the podium in front of all the wheelchair users, because it was clearly a completely inappropriate layout for how the wheelchair users in question needed to address the event. As my hon. Friend is aware, and as I said in the Modernisation Committee when we considered this report recently, there continue to be external accessibility changes we need to make in the House.
I note the recommendations in the report on accessible formats. I was really glad when my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) had her East Kent Mencap group visit the building recently, and a number of Members with experience of this went to speak to them about their experiences—I was very privileged to do so. We clearly always need to look at those formats, and ask whether our information is available in an easy read format for them in the way it would be for any other visitors, and whether we can have the same discussions with those users.
Although she is not here today, I want to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for her valuable work since her election to make this building far more accessible. From her viewpoint, the building certainly was not in such a place.
Lastly, I want to refer to Changing Places toilets. A few months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney and I wandered down to the National Portrait Gallery to see what a more modern, accessible Changing Places toilet looks like. We have the issue that, when wheelchair users who attend the all-party groups I chair come to Portcullis House, there is no Changing Places toilet there. The Changing Places toilet we have is in the Lower Waiting Hall, and I would say it is to the original Changing Places standard of about 20 years ago. I have used it with my own daughter, and the hoist is a mobile hoist. The ceiling is very low, and an adult trying to get on it will most probably hit their head on the ceiling. It does not have a moveable sink to get a wheelchair underneath. It is not to the current standards we would expect of a Changing Places toilet. It is the one place where the people who attend the all-party groups I chair can use the toilet, yet it still is not to modern standards. As my hon. Friend and colleagues across the House know, I will continue to lobby to have one of a modern standard in Portcullis House and equally for the existing toilet to be of a modern standard.
As I said in my Changing Places debate last year, we have seen great improvements. My daughter, who has quadriplegic cerebral palsy, will be 13 this year, and I remember how few Changing Places toilets there were in this part of London 10 years ago. There has been great progress, including under the previous Government, in making sure that local railway stations and tourist destinations have Changing Places toilets. There are the ones at the National Portrait Gallery and the National Gallery down the road; there is the one in IKEA in Oxford Street, which I had to work very hard for and lobby to get its standard up to spec; and, just yesterday, the one at St Paul’s cathedral finally opened. Those places, where visitors are welcome to access the history and culture of our amazing city, do have such facilities, yet this place does not. We need those facilities both in Portcullis House and, to a more modern standard, in the Palace itself.
I thank the Committee for its work. I will continue to press on these areas, including in my role as a member of the Modernisation Committee, but while other workplaces have brought themselves into the 21st century, we must acknowledge that there is work that we still need to do.
Business of the House
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I will get everybody in, but may I remind Members that business questions should pertain to the business of the House, and that it is customary to ask the Leader of the House to grant Government time for a debate or a statement? We appear to have had a run of questions to which the business has not really been that relevant.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Last week, I was delighted to welcome £20 million of long-term Pride in Place funding for Heavitree East and Whipton in Exeter. This funding will be transformational for those communities, after years in which they have felt left behind by the last Government. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating the most exciting aspect of Pride in Place, which is that it is designed to give residents a full say in how the funding is used in their community, and might there be a debate in Government time on community engagement?
Christmas Adjournment
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the Christmas adjournment.
I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Members, their staff and all the staff here in Parliament a very merry Christmas, a happy Hanukkah, and a happy, peaceful, prosperous and, above all else, healthy new year. As the nights are drawing in, we will undoubtedly all be lucifugous by the spring—explanations of that will come later.
Let me turn to local matters in my constituency. When the Conservative party took over Harrow council back in 2022, it was mired in corruption, there were backlogs in road, pothole and pavement maintenance, and basic services were not being delivered to residents, who pay a high level of council tax. Well, things have changed. The administration is now spending more than £40 million across three years on the highways budget, and it is very apparent on our roads and pavements that things have changed.
We have also rolled out one hour of free parking across the borough. That is the most generous parking allowance anywhere in London. Fly-tipping, which I know is also the blight of many other areas of the country, is being addressed. In the past year alone, more than 1,000 fines were issued to the culprits of fly-tipping. The council has even reopened phone lines so that people can call and actually speak to a human being at the council, which was not possible for many years—I welcome that.
In Rayners Lane, the council is tackling the scourge of double parking and stopping those who think that they can simply park their car in the middle of the road, lock it and go off to the shops. Thanks to Councillor Thaya Idaikkadar, there is now an enormously successful red route. More than 500 fines were issued in the first week, and awareness of the scheme rules is growing. I just hope that, when he visits Rayners Lane, Santa Claus does not park in the middle of the road, because he will get a ticket.
To tackle fly-tipping, the council has introduced one free annual bulky waste collection for every household. That is making a huge difference. We know what it is like when people want to dispose of freezers, wardrobes or sofas. We want them to be cleared up quickly. As well as the bulky waste collections, there are drop-and-go sessions for which the council sets up a recycling centre in a car park, so that residents can drop off their waste. That is extremely popular and has reduced fly-tipping—people can see the difference. However, those who dump rubbish on the streets of Harrow or elsewhere should suffer the penalties for doing so. Harrow suffered criminal fly-tipping that was similar to, but not as large as, that in Oxfordshire. It is vital that residents continue to report fly-tipping and that action is taken.
There could have been even better news for residents in Harrow this week, as we were all looking forward to confirmation that Harrow’s first special educational needs and disabilities school in more than a generation will be built. The money to build and operate the school was delivered under the previous Conservative Government, but in common with so many other projects, when this Labour Government came into office they froze the proposal and we have been struggling to get clarity ever since. Indeed, the Budget was supposed to have been an early Christmas present for residents, but it has turned into a nightmare before Christmas.
Certain Labour Members—not Conservatives—were told about the bubble and squeak medley of the announcement last week. Money was announced to improve existing SEND facilities in mainstream schools, while the Government are now minded to cancel the new school that had been promised by the previous Labour administration in Harrow. The much-needed SEND school at 265 The Ridgeway, where the previous Harrow Labour administration wanted to build flats, is in continued limbo, with alternative funding to be provided—you could not make it up. The school needs to be built urgently, because children are being sent for an hour and half each way to specialist schools miles outside the borough, which is costing the council an incredible amount. That is bad news for their education and their mental health. Spades could be in the ground now and the school could be opening soon, but we need the money and we need the school built now.
Similarly, hon. Members will have heard that the Labour Mayor of London is breaking yet another manifesto promise by closing police front counters across the capital, including in Harrow and in Pinner. It is unacceptable that the mayor can promise before the election that everything will be better with a Labour Government and a Labour mayor, while knowing the state of London’s finances, and then blatantly break that promise. As one of our local councillors put it, the pantomime villain in this endless saga is the big baddie—the Mayor of London.
Police front counters are a vital safe haven for women and girls. Those who have unfortunately been sexually molested or raped need to go somewhere safe to report the crime committed against them. In the case of Pinner, the front desk was being run by volunteers, so there is very little saving. I urge the Government and the Home Secretary to step in, and to join the thousands of residents who have signed my petition and the petition organised by my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), to keep the front desks open at the police stations in Harrow and Pinner, as was promised.
Hon. Members who have attended these debates before will know that I have campaigned constantly for step-free access and lifts in stations in Harrow for a long time, and that campaign continues. When I was first elected, I took up the cudgels on this, and there is now the good news that Canons Park station has finally been shortlisted for a feasibility study. I hope that that happens. However, we still await news about Queensbury station and, more importantly, Stanmore station.
Stanmore is designated as step-free, but in reality passengers face a choice of 48 steps to the main entrance, 16 steps via the car park, 24 steps at the side to the bus stop or the so-called step-free route, which is 140 metres long and includes a steep ramp that even the Paralympian Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson could not complete unaided. For the past six or seven months, my office has been working to get Stanmore delisted as step-free and obtain a proper definition of what step-free means, so that we can then work to get lifts or adaptations installed. I urge colleagues who face similar problems to contact my office so that we can work together.
While I am on the subject of transport, Transport for London continues to blame the September 2024 cyber-attack for the backlog in private hire vehicle and private carriage office licences, which is unacceptable and is delaying many of my constituents in gaining work. The new Piccadilly line trains have been delayed again, and are not expected until late next year. Graffiti on the Bakerloo and Central lines continues to get worse, despite the head of TfL claiming that vigilantes from Looking for Growth were painting graffiti on to then clean it off, which is a completely ridiculous position.
Homelessness in England is increasing. Crisis found record levels of homelessness, with more than 300,000 individuals and families experiencing its worst forms in 2024, which is an increase of 22%. London has the greatest homelessness pressures, and one in 50 Londoners and, sadly, at least one child in every London classroom is homeless. As we approach Christmas, many of us will be doing our shopping, seeing family and loved ones, and maybe turning the heating up a bit, but let us think of those sleeping rough: cold, wet and often hungry, on a park bench or in a shop corner, in sub-zero temperatures overnight. There are no official stats on how many homeless people are, sadly, dying in their sleep, but one has only to imagine the harsh and life-threatening conditions that they have to endure.
There are steps that can be taken, and I invite the Government to take them. My oven-ready Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023, which is yet to be implemented, could help. My private Member’s Bill, which had an unopposed Second Reading, is still waiting for its Committee and Report stages and conclusion, but we can take other steps. Local authorities have to meet rising costs so that victims of domestic abuse are not forgotten and hospital discharges and the plight of temporary accommodation are not ignored. I thank the team at Crisis and all the other charities for the work that they do to help homeless people.
I represent Harrow East, which is the most diverse constituency in the country, with someone from every faith and country in the world and speakers of every language spoken on earth, so I deal with a large chunk of matters related to the Home Office. However, it has not helped that my staff have been told not to chase cases for upwards of a year. They will get no updates for 12 months, and even longer in some cases, so I am left flabbergasted and discombobulated by the position. The Government must be thorough in their checks, but it does not do much for my constituents, their family members or my staff to be told month after month, “I’m sorry, but there is no update.”
My office recently met Home Office officials to manage expectations and make it clear that I am not going to stop chasing the applications until they are decided overall, not just closed. Indeed, in my role as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue, I have been continually raising the issue of the Grenfell Tower inquiry recommendations. I note that a written ministerial statement about that is on the Order Paper, but we have other issues, such as lithium-ion batteries, solar panels, modern construction methods and other technologies, that come into the proposals.
I know you want me to wind up, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have three quick points. On Iran, let the Government come forward and proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety, as they promised when they were in opposition. On India and Bangladesh, let us ensure that there are free and fair elections that include every single party; in my humble opinion, the outlawing of the Awami League is an outrage. I am delighted that we have reformed the Azerbaijan all-party parliamentary group, and we are looking for increased trade, which was worth £888 million in the last 12 months alone.
I was delighted to captain the House of Commons bridge team this year to a commanding victory over the House of Lords. I was even honoured with the award for the best-played hand. My partner, the former MP Aaron Bell, left me in a very difficult contract, but I managed to make it.
While we sit on these green Benches and praise and thank everyone, we must always think about the incredible team behind us. My team in my office this year has dealt with more than 12,000 individual cases, bringing the total to almost 100,000 cases since I was elected in 2010. I thank my entire team: my wife Nicola; Hattie Shoosmith, who has now gone off to Dubai; Matthew Goodwin-Freeman; James Thomson; Rhys Benjamin; James Bourke; and Gabriele Montone for their work. I hope they have a good rest over Christmas and are ready to do it all again next year. One member of my team, Rhys Benjamin, is off to Australia—hopefully he will see some cricket and see a turnaround of England’s fortunes in the Ashes. Merry Christmas.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
There will have to be an immediate three-minute time limit.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
It is good to see the Leader of the House personally responding to this debate; it shows the respect that he has for the House, which is much appreciated. We were talking yesterday about the Chartist graffiti in the Cloisters, which lay hidden until a few years ago when it was uncovered. As the MP for Newport East, I can say that we are very proud of our Chartist history in Newport. I pay tribute to Newport Rising, which commemorates the Chartist uprising of 1839 every year; it was the last armed insurrection in this country. As my late constituency neighbour, Paul Flynn, used to say, we could do more in this House to recognise movements such as the Chartists that shape our democracy, particularly in times when our democracy is under threat.
Newport may have a rich Roman, Chartist—we are the city of democracy—and industrial heritage, but it also has a very bright future. Throughout its history, Newport has been prized for its location, with our unrivalled access to rail and sea links, and that plays a central role in the city’s economy today as we take steps into the new industrial revolution. This year has been a transformational one for Newport: there have been big investments in our exceptional semiconductor cluster; companies have moved their headquarters to the city; we have had new tech jobs; there is work under way on one of the UK’s biggest battery storage sites; we have strong local cyber-security expertise; and, thanks to the Government, Newport is a key player in the south Wales artificial intelligence growth zone. This is all supported by two active Governments at both ends of the M4, showing the benefits of two Labour Governments working together after years of Tory neglect.
Our traditional industries remain strong, with tens of millions of pounds-worth of investment in Associated British Ports’s Newport port this year, and Tata’s steelworks—clearly, it is a difficult time for steel, but I thank our Ministers for an active industrial policy that is helping. Newport is the fastest growing city in Wales; jobs in new sectors are opening up many opportunities for the city’s young people. It is not just about our industries; it is about our people. I have been privileged this year to work with Newport council, led with great positivity and energy by Dimitri Batrouni, who has massive ambition for our city. The biggest ever settlement from the UK Labour Government to Wales means that the council is able to address the things that matter to people, such as getting streets resurfaced. Streets are cleaner, and the city centre is on the up with 85% retail occupancy rates, which is great. There is still work to do, but the growth in our policing settlement is really starting to help.
Like all hon. Members, the great privilege of my job is working with constituents who do not just do it for the thanks—but I am going to thank them anyway. I particularly thank 11-year-old Sfiyah, who has juvenile arthritis and uses her incredible energy and infectious positivity to raise awareness, including coming to lobbies in this House. She inspires me every week, as does former Welsh Guard Mike Hermanis, a Falklands veteran who is fighting to get to the truth of what happened when the Sir Galahad was attacked in 1982.
Business of the House
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
I do, of course, join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Hartlepool pupils and staff who organised the events that he refers to. I was pleased to be involved in a number of Parliament Week events myself, and I would encourage all Members across the House to engage with schools in their communities, not just on Parliament Week but throughout the year, to make sure that we engender a better understanding of this place.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I join the Leader of the House in his tributes to Sir John Stanley and Paul Barwell. He referred to the Christmas spirit getting going in and around the House, and I ask him to spare a thought for the Lib Dem staffers clutching coffees this morning after their Christmas party last night. I cannot confirm or deny whether I joined them.
Earlier this week, the Government announced a trade deal between the US and the UK on drug prices and medicines. Having reportedly rejected a price increase of £2.5 billion earlier this summer, the Government’s negotiators went back to the table and will apparently now pay £3 billion more instead. There is a live debate over how much the NHS should pay for drugs, which I respect. Big pharma has always wanted to drive up prices and has clearly not liked the purchasing power of the NHS, but the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence thresholds have not changed for some time, and there are some who argue that that means we are missing out on particular medicines. Others make the alternative argument that the opportunity cost of that spending in other areas of healthcare means that the thresholds should stay where they are.
Wherever we stand on that debate, two things are clear. First, this considered debate should not be settled by the bully-boy tactics of President Trump. He introduced 100% tariffs, breaking the World Trade Organisation rules on tariffs over this, and has come out with the explicit intention of putting Americans first. Secondly, the Government should explain how this huge price increase will be paid for. Daniel Elkeles, the chief executive of NHS Providers, says that
“it is not yet clear how it will be paid for”,
and there are fears among GPs, dentists and community pharmacists that they will be the ones who will suffer as a result of the increase in prices. Will the Leader of the House urge a Health Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to answer questions about the impact of this new deal?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue; I know it is an issue of concern to Members right across the House. It is a complex matter, and we are carefully considering the options for redress outlined in the Hughes report. I note that there was a very well-attended Westminster Hall debate on this matter earlier this year. I will make sure that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has heard her concerns, but I remind her, and indeed the House, of the opportunity to raise such matters more fully in the pre-recess Adjournment debate coming shortly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Martin Vickers, in place of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
Recently, a 12-year-old boy in Timperley in my constituency was stabbed with a screwdriver by a local adult man in a totally unjustified attack. Thankfully, my constituent survived this horrific ordeal, but both he and his parents were staggered to learn that the attacker has been released on bail. I share the deep concerns of the victim, his friends who witnessed the attack and all their parents about this decision, so could the Leader of the House help me raise—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. May I gently say to the hon. Member that this matter may well be sub judice and that the House therefore needs to tread very carefully when discussing it?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure the whole House will join me in expressing our deepest sympathy on this distressing attack and in wishing the young boy a full and swift recovery from this horrific ordeal. I am not surprised that it has caused such distress to his parents. I will tread carefully and say that I will draw it to the attention of the relevant Minister and make sure that my hon. Friend gets a response.
Business of the House
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The biodiversity treaty is an important step forward, and I thank him for all the work he is doing in this regard. The Government are committed to environmental improvement. Although I expect that the second Session will be quite crowded, I will certainly bear in mind his comments.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I join the Leader of the House in thanking Mr Speaker for the seriousness with which he is taking Chinese interference in our democracy. I represent many Hongkongers in my constituency, and they are deeply concerned about this issue.
It was a relief to hear confirmation that the Budget will be taking place on the Floor of the House next week. I am sure it is also a huge relief to advisers in the Treasury, who have just days before they start leaking the 2026 Budget. One thing that people will be looking out for in the Budget next week is the provisions that will be made for children with special educational needs and disabilities. I am fully aware that this is a crisis that was inherited by this Government, but it was not an unforeseen crisis. Eighteen months into this Government, we hear that their major reform plans have been pushed back again, which is a disappointment to us on the Liberal Democrat Benches. We are seeing councils go bankrupt, teachers in despair and families held in legal limbo—and ultimately, children being failed.
I appreciate that there are some really tricky issues to resolve—balancing legal entitlements on paper with quality provision in reality, and adjusting to a world with higher diagnosis rates—but there are some actions that the Government could take right away, in particular in relation to private placements. Those have trebled in the past decade, and they cost more than double a state placement—about £60,000. We know that private equity is really aggressive in this space; it is taking on institutions and eating up market share, and its profit margins are reportedly around 20%. In the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the Government introduced the idea of profit caps on those who are being exploitative in the children’s social care sector. Will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Minister whether that can be extended to SEND schools?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am very pleased to do that. I thank everyone who has responded to my hon. Friend’s survey. That is one of the very best ways of getting information from parents, and the scale of the responses demonstrates the scale of the problems in the system. I pay tribute to her for the work that she has done on this issue. As I said, we are committed to creating a SEND system that truly works for children and parents, and I am sure that her constituents’ comments will be reflected as the White Paper comes forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for 4 December in the Chamber. I understand that the House may be suspended for a period on that day because of a state visit, so will he give consideration to protected time for those two very heavily subscribed debates? Will he also indicate whether we will get time in the Chamber on 11 December? Our backlog of debates is such that if we had every Thursday between now and the Easter recess, we could fill every single one. I note that the House rose very early yesterday. If the Government are having a problem with business, we can always put on debates to allow colleagues from the Back Benches to debate what they wish to debate in Government time. If we are given Thursday 18 December, it will be the traditional pre-recess Adjournment debate for Christmas.
Our forthcoming business in Westminster Hall is as follows. On Tuesday 25 November, there will be a debate on the potential impact of immigration reforms on humanitarian visa routes. On Thursday 27 November, because of the Budget debate in the main Chamber, there will be a Select Committee statement from the Business and Trade Committee, followed by debates on the impact of extended producer responsibility for packaging and on protecting children from domestic abuse. On 2 December, there will be a debate on the adequacy of funding to support homeless people, and on 4 December, there will be a debate on a comprehensive acquired brain injury action plan, followed by a debate on seafarers’ welfare.
Today is the 80th anniversary of the start of the Nuremberg trials. Earlier this week we had a very good briefing at the all-party parliamentary group for the Holocaust memorial and education centre from Adam Wagner, a renowned human rights lawyer. Twenty-four Nazis were put on trial, and the trial lasted 11 months. At the end of it, 22 of them were sentenced to either very long prison sentences or death; amazingly enough, two were acquitted. It would be very helpful if we could have a statement from the Education Secretary on incorporating the business of the Nuremberg trials into the national curriculum, because this was the first time that human rights law started to come to the fore, particularly on war crimes and crimes against humanity. Could the Leader of the House arrange for that to happen?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
As I suspect he has an important question on Scottish football, I call Richard Baker.
Richard Baker
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating not only the famous and heroic Scottish football team on its qualification for the world cup this week, but the charity Fife Gingerbread in my constituency? It was also successful this week, as it was a finalist in the Centre for Social Justice UK charity awards. It was recognised for its stargazing strategy and brilliant work to tackle child poverty and promote employability for lone parents. Will the Leader of the House consider allocating time for Parliament to debate how we can best support the vital work of third-sector organisations in providing employability programmes?
Business of the House
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. The right hon. Gentleman raises a really important issue, and I am sure we all share the frustration that he describes with many arm’s length bodies—quangos, as they are known—not being open and accountable in the way that they should be. Frankly, the Government think there are too many of them and we are taking steps to streamline them. It is in the DNA of this Government to make sure that people have recourse and accountability. That is why we have introduced Bills such as the Football Governance Bill, the Renters’ Rights Bill, the Employment Rights Bill and what is now the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. We want to give ordinary people more rights and recourse in respect of bodies that take decisions on their behalf. I will ensure that the right hon. Gentleman gets a reply from UKRI, and I am sure that it has heard his question.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I extend my sympathies to you and your family on the recent death of your mother?
Last Sunday, people from across Staffordshire, including many from the heart and soul of our ancient county, Newcastle-under-Lyme, came together at Lichfield cathedral for a celebration of Sir Ian Dudson’s service as lord lieutenant of Staffordshire. Sir Ian and Lady Dudson have served the county, and particularly Newcastle-under-Lyme, very well for well over a decade. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Sir Ian and Lady Dudson for their service to the county and wishing them and their family well for their retirement?
Lucy Powell
I am sure many Members across the House share my hon. Friend’s frustrations about water companies operating in their constituencies. Frankly, some of the bad behaviour of those water companies has gone on for too long, and there has not been enough accountability or action on the issues that matter to us all. That is why we brought in the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 and established the commission on the future of water governance. Further legislation on this matter will come forward in due course.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Leader of the House for her responses this morning.
Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I inform the House that the Speaker has selected the following amendments as listed on the order paper: (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e).
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the report of the House of Commons Commission entitled Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme: Policy Framework and ICGS Assurance Board (HC 579), further notes the Decisions of the Commission on 12 May, and agrees:
(1) That the ICGS Policy Framework in respect of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct annexed to the Commission report shall have effect from 14 July 2025.
(2) There shall be a body called the ICGS Assurance Board.
(3) The ICGS Assurance Board shall conduct assurance of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme on behalf of the parliamentary community, in accordance with terms of reference published by the House of Commons Commission on 17 December 2024.
(4) The terms of reference of the Assurance Board may be varied by agreement between the House of Commons Commission and the House of Lords Commission.
(5) The ICGS Assurance Board shall consist of:
(a) the Clerk Assistant,
(b) the Clerk Assistant of the House of Lords,
(c) the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards,
(d) the Chair of the Independent Expert Panel,
(e) a Member of the House of Commons who is a member of the House of Commons Commission, appointed by the Commission,
(f) a Member of the House of Lords who is a member of the House of Lords Commission,
(g) a representative of the House of Lords Conduct Committee, and
(h) a representative of the human resources department from each House Administration.
(6) The ICGS Assurance Board shall have authority to approve ICGS Procedures, in accordance with the ICGS Policy Framework, provided that:
(a) nothing in the ICGS Procedures document may amend or override provisions in the Policy Framework;
(b) procedures cannot create new obligations for individuals’ conduct.
(7) The policies and procedures relating to bullying and harassment and sexual misconduct endorsed by the House on 19 July 2018 and amended on 17 July 2019, 28 April 2021 and 26 April 2022 shall cease to have effect on 14 July 2025, save that they shall continue to apply to any complaints received on or before 13 July 2025.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With this we shall discuss the following:
Amendment (a), in paragraph (1), after “2025” insert
“, subject to the removal of paragraphs 7.1, 9.4, 10.3, 13.2, 14.3, 17.7, 17.8 and 18.7”
Amendment (b), in paragraph (5)(e), leave out—
“a Member of the House of Commons who is a member of the House of Commons Commission, appointed by the Commission”
and insert—
“two Members of the House of Commons, elected by the House of Commons”
Amendment (c), in paragraph 5(f), leave out—
“a Member of the House of Lords who is a member of the House of Lords Commission”
and insert—
“two Members of the House of Lords”
Amendment (d), leave out paragraph 5(h).
Amendment (e), leave out paragraph (6) and paragraph 1.4 of the ICGS Policy Framework.
Lucy Powell
The establishment of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, known as the ICGS—the first scheme of its kind in any legislature in the world— was an important step forward in tackling inappropriate behaviour in Parliament. Its establishment was agreed in 2018 with cross-party support.
The ICGS provides a dedicated, independent mechanism for handling complaints of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct in both Houses. It deals with those complaints assiduously and anonymously, with a professional, well-resourced team, and has a range of appropriate sanctions and mechanisms at its disposal. The ICGS works alongside the independent expert panel, which determines appeals and sanctions for cases that have been brought against Members of Parliament. These arrangements ensure complaints are investigated fairly, objectively and to a high standard.
The ICGS has been an important driver in establishing higher standards and improved culture in Parliament and we should all support it. I thank the ICGS for its continued work, and in particular the contribution of its director, Thea Walton, who will be stepping down from her role later this year.
Last year, Parliament published the findings of an independent review into the effectiveness of the ICGS, conducted by Paul Kernaghan. The review broadly praised the ICGS’s performance, with Kernaghan being clear the ICGS is making a difference to standards in Parliament, and has demonstrated its ability to hold people to account for unacceptable behaviour. He said that the ICGS is something
“the parliamentary community should take pride in”.
The review found that the scheme has continued to take positive steps to improve timeliness and the quality of its service. Of course there is always more work to be done. It should rightly have the ambition to be the gold standard in workplace grievance schemes. In total, the review made 26 recommendations. Of those, eight have already been delivered, and a further eight will be taken forward should the motion before the House be agreed. Work on the remaining recommendations is under way. These are recommendations from an independent review of the independent grievance scheme of this House: they really should not be contentious.
Kernaghan’s first recommendation is to consolidate the various policy and procedure documents into one policy document and one procedure document, and that the existing ICGS assurance group should become a permanent ICGS assurance board.
Lucy Powell
It is important that we advertise this service—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to do that. Any member of staff, any Member of Parliament or anybody working in the broader parliamentary community who has been subject to bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct should get in touch. There is a helpline, and there are well-advertised ways of getting in touch with the ICGS, not just to make a complaint but to get advice about whether a complaint is in scope and can be taken forward. As I said earlier, the ICGS has a range of means: it does not always involve a full investigation with sanctions. The ICGS might often come to some resolution, and there are other means through which any such behaviour could be resolved. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, because it is important.
To be absolutely clear with the House, the policy framework of the ICGS remains a matter for this House. That includes the definitions, parameters, obligations and key rights and permissions of the scheme as well as its scope. I have laid in the Library and attached to the motion on the Order Paper a letter from the ICGS that sets out the difference between policy and procedure, because I know that is of concern to people.
Colleagues may want an update on a couple of other recommendations from the Kernaghan review that are not a matter for the motion today. Recommendation 3, which asks that political parties work more closely with the ICGS when dealing with complaints through a memorandum of understanding, is being taken forward by the Modernisation Committee with the co-operation of the political parties, and I thank all those concerned for that. The House has also taken forward recommendations on behaviour training. As of the end of March 2025, 639 out of 650 new and returning MPs have attended behaviour training.
Taken together, the recommendations from the Kernaghan review will improve ICGS performance and accountability, provide greater clarity about where complaints should go and how they should be dealt with, and speed up necessary changes to its day-to-day procedure. In total, they will improve behaviour and culture in this place. This is an important moment for the House to come together, I hope, on a cross-party basis, to show that we stand behind the ICGS, what it stands for and the work it does, and to show that we will improve and take forward the independent recommendations to keep improving its work.
I am disappointed that Opposition Front Benchers have broken with years of consensus on this matter to oppose some of the changes proposed, which came from an independent reviewer. I see that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) is not in his place, despite his amendments being selected. His amendments, which are supported by Members on the Conservative Front Bench, undermine the integrity of the Kernaghan review recommendations, and I cannot support them. I hope the shadow Leader of the House will take the opportunity to distance himself from those amendments. The reputation of Parliament is low, with poor trust in politics and politicians, and it is for all of us to turn the page on that era.
The safety of those who work on the estate is paramount. I am clear, as I am sure everybody is clear, that there is no place for bullying, harassment or sexual harassment in Parliament. Those who perpetrate it should be accountable and sanctioned where necessary. I commend these recommendations to the House and call on all Members from all parties to support these improvements.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I declare an interest: I am a member of the House of Commons Commission, which has nominated me as a member of the independent complaints and grievance scheme advisory group, so I am a member of the group that we are discussing.
When I was first elected, I attended the training on the ICGS, along with my colleagues from the 2024 parliamentary intake, and I was deeply sobered by some of the appalling behaviour I heard about—examples of why the ICGS had to be brought in. I am very grateful that the ICGS is in place, and I know that my staff and other members of the parliamentary community are also grateful for this independent process through which people can raise their complaints and grievances. I fundamentally disagree with the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), in his characterisation of the scheme, and I disagree with the way that the powers of the advisory group have been characterised. At no point does the advisory group have a chance to make any particular judgments about individuals. As the Leader of the House set out, the advisory board governs the procedures that establish how the scheme should operate, through its independent investigators.
Without an independent complaints and grievance scheme for this parliamentary community, we would be far poorer. In this day and age, when trust and confidence in politicians is at an all-time low, it is vital that we are open to scrutiny, and that we attract all possible talent into the parliamentary community. That will happen only if people feel safe to work here. We must have confidence that an independent scheme is available to everybody who chooses to work here, so that they can safely do their jobs.
I hope that everybody supports this motion—I understand that there will not be a Division—and I welcome this opportunity to celebrate the positive work done in this area by the Leader of the House. It is regrettable that all the work she has put into trying to encourage cross-party support for this measure was not recognised by the shadow Leader of the House. His characterisation of that discussion was not representative of what actually took place, but I look forward to there being more support for the motion from other Members of this House, perhaps from other parties, who recognise how vital this independent scheme is for the whole parliamentary community.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I intend to speak briefly, and I draw the House’s attention to my role as chair of the parliamentary group for the GMB, the union that represents the largest number of workers on the parliamentary estate, and to my declarations to that effect in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Parliament is, on the whole, a more professional, safer and more sober place to work than it once was. Such progress, however, is no excuse for complacency. Inappropriate and predatory behaviour can occur anywhere, but the risk factors are higher here, and I pay tribute to all the workplace representatives who have worked quietly down the years to raise standards and challenge poor practice in this place. I welcome the steps outlined in the motion to clarify and strengthen the ICGS, and I also wish to comment briefly on the Opposition amendments.
The shadow Leader of the House said that amendment (e) will not be moved, but we did not hear about amendment (a), which is in the name of a Back-Bench MP, but is co-signed by the shadow deputy Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey). If I have understood the amendment correctly, it would strike out the scope for collective complaints, and it would block the investigation of complaints if a police investigation has not resulted in a conviction, even though the standard of proof is different for the two things. The amendments would also, as far as I can tell, prevent the reinvestigation of a complaint if a respondent succeeds in persuading or pressurising a complainant into withdrawing. That point was made powerfully by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman). Amendment (a) could provide a cover for abuse, were it agreed. That is plain and apparent, and it is a matter of deep regret that it appears to have some degree of sponsorship from the Opposition.
While I do not wish to depart today from the recommendations of the Kernaghan report, I will raise some matters on workforce representation. We have already heard that the workforce representatives in this place will continue to be consulted, and that is welcome. Can the Leader of the House confirm whether workforce representatives will be able to attend meetings of the assurance board in an observer capacity? It would also be good to hear whether there will be scope for direct representation of those workforce voices on the assurance board. That would improve its functioning. I know that she recently met GMB reps to discuss those same concerns, and I hope that she can comment further tonight.
Finally, some 7,000 people provide support to parliamentarians. They all deserve to work in a modern environment, secure in the knowledge that there is a robust and independent process providing accountability and redress if they are mistreated. The politicisation of those processes in recent years is deeply regrettable, and I hope that cross-party support for them can be swiftly restored.
Lucy Powell
The issue of scope was covered in the Kernaghan review. Kernaghan made it clear that the scope of the ICGS in when a case involves any two or more members of the parliamentary community. Perhaps there have been times when that scope has been unintentionally narrowed operationally. What the Modernisation Committee is considering is recommendation 3, which relates to a memorandum of understanding between the political parties and the ICGS in relation to how they deal with complaints. I think we can all agree that when complaints are within the scope of the ICGS, they should go to the ICGS and not to political parties, which, unfortunately, have shown themselves not able to deal with such complaints in the same way. That is not just a matter for the Modernisation Committee; it is a matter for the political parties as well, and we are making progress in that regard—particularly with the Labour party, which is keen to engage with the issue.
I will not detain colleagues much longer, but I will pick up on a few points that have been raised. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for her brilliant contribution, and for all the work that she is doing on the House of Commons Commission and the assurance board. As ever, I thank my colleague on the commission and the Modernisation Committee, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), who made an excellent contribution on why the amendments are gutting amendments, which we should not support.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), I put on record my thanks to the trade union reps who operate in this House. They should absolutely be involved, through the stakeholder group, in a formal consultation about any changes to procedure. After this debate, I will approach the ICGS to ask it to consider allowing the trade unions to attend meetings of the assurance board in the same capacity in which they come to the House of Commons Commission to make representations, because that will be important.
Finally, I want to take on the arguments made by the shadow Leader of the House. First, these are not my proposals—they are not Government proposals. This is a motion on the business of the House in my name, because that is how such motions get to the Floor of the House. These proposals were put forward by an independent review—to which all political parties and all Members of this House had the opportunity to contribute—of an independent grievance scheme, which has rightly improved behaviour and standards. They are not my proposals; they are independent proposals. This body will not be setting the rules—that is just wrong. It will be looking at procedures, and at how they can be streamlined and made more effective. As I have just said, the rules—that is, the policies—will continue to be set by this House.
It is about time we moved on from the age-old argument that Members of this House have a right to behave however they want and the only time they are accountable for that is at the ballot box five years later. That is the argument that the shadow Leader of the House was proposing—I am sorry, but we put that argument to bed a long time ago, as I think the Chair of the Committee on Standards agrees.
If colleagues, cross-party, support the ICGS and the improvements in behaviour and culture that it has brought to this House, and if they want to see that body becoming more effective and having more timely and quality investigations, they really need to support today’s motion. As others have said, we all have a duty to ensure that this is a workplace where people can work safely and securely, free from bullying, harassment and bad behaviour.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Amendments (a) to (e) have been selected for separate decision. However, I understand that no Member wishes to move them, so I will move straight to the main Question.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes the report of the House of Commons Commission entitled Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme: Policy Framework and ICGS Assurance Board (HC 579), further notes the Decisions of the Commission on 12 May, and agrees:
(1) That the ICGS Policy Framework in respect of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct annexed to the Commission report shall have effect from 14 July 2025.
(2) There shall be a body called the ICGS Assurance Board.
(3) The ICGS Assurance Board shall conduct assurance of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme on behalf of the parliamentary community, in accordance with terms of reference published by the House of Commons Commission on 17 December 2024.
(4) The terms of reference of the Assurance Board may be varied by agreement between the House of Commons Commission and the House of Lords Commission.
(5) The ICGS Assurance Board shall consist of:
(a) the Clerk Assistant,
(b) the Clerk Assistant of the House of Lords,
(c) the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards,
(d) the Chair of the Independent Expert Panel,
(e) a Member of the House of Commons who is a member of the House of Commons Commission, appointed by the Commission,
(f) a Member of the House of Lords who is a member of the House of Lords Commission,
(g) a representative of the House of Lords Conduct Committee, and
(h) a representative of the human resources department from each House Administration.
(6) The ICGS Assurance Board shall have authority to approve ICGS Procedures, in accordance with the ICGS Policy Framework, provided that:
(a) nothing in the ICGS Procedures document may amend or override provisions in the Policy Framework;
(b) procedures cannot create new obligations for individuals’ conduct.
(7) The policies and procedures relating to bullying and harassment and sexual misconduct endorsed by the House on 19 July 2018 and amended on 17 July 2019, 28 April 2021 and 26 April 2022 shall cease to have effect on 14 July 2025, save that they shall continue to apply to any complaints received on or before 13 July 2025.
Business of the House
Caroline Nokes Excerpts(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. I join my hon. Friend in welcoming those from Astwood Bank’s Royal British Legion to Parliament today. I am sure the whole House is grateful for the work that they have done, for the thousands of pounds that they have raised, and for all the service that they have given over many years.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I echo the Leader of the House’s words about the intolerable and increasingly unsurvivable situation in Gaza. I urge the Government to do everything in their power to help remedy the situation.
My Chelmsford constituent, who is self-employed, regularly has to deal with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. He recently wrote to me about the unacceptable waiting times on HMRC’s customer service helpline. In his experience, this issue has been going on for years but has recently grown considerably worse. He tells me that he sometimes has to wait for up to 40 minutes before giving up and hanging up. It is all very well having services online, but if they are not fully accessible, people will still need an HMRC helpline that is responsive. Sadly, that is not the case.
The unacceptable level of customer service has been the subject of cross-party criticism in this House many times over the years. This year, the Public Accounts Committee agreed that the situation has indeed got worse. It found that 44,000 HMRC customers were cut off while waiting more than 70 minutes to reach an adviser—more than six times the figure for the whole of the 2022-23 financial year. I am sure the whole House will agree that spending time on the phone while waiting to resolve tax issues is not something that many of us or our constituents particularly enjoy doing, and it does not do anything to help productivity. Businesses need to spend their time selling their goods and services and generating tax receipts for the Treasury, not languishing on the end of a phone. Will the Leader of the House ask for a statement to be made about when we can expect to see improvements?
Lucy Powell
This issue is raised with me regularly at business questions, and by my own constituents, as I represent many leaseholders across Manchester Central. The situation my hon. Friend describes is all too familiar, and I am sorry to hear what FirstPort is doing in her constituency. She will know that this Government have real ambitions for leasehold reform. We want to end the feudal system of leasehold and bring forward a system of commonhold. That is why we have published the White Paper, and we have also laid regulations to make it easier for leaseholders to get the right to manage. Later this year, we will bring forward a draft leasehold reform Bill, which will be a comprehensive package to change the system for good.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, in the Chamber next week there will be a statement from the Business and Trade Committee. When we come back after the Whitsun recess, if we are granted the time, on 5 June there will be a debate on high street banking closures and banking hubs, followed by a debate on safety regulations in the construction and planning of battery energy storage sites. If we are given the time, on 12 June there will be a debate on the distribution of special educational needs and disabilities funding, followed by a debate on the fifth anniversary of the covid-19 pandemic.
In Westminster Hall next week, on Tuesday there will be a debate on pensions for people living overseas, and on Thursday there will be a full three-hour debate on the UK-EU summit results. When we come back, on Tuesday 3 June there will be a debate on the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, and on Thursday 5 June there will be a debate on the police presence on high streets, followed by a debate on the contribution of maths to the UK. On Tuesday 10 June there will be a debate on the US aid funding pause and the impact on UK international development, and on Thursday 12 June there will be a debate on the legal recognition of humanist marriages, followed by a debate on long-term conditions.
Today is the last day for people to respond to the consultation by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on my private Member’s Bill, which was given Royal Assent in 2023, on supported housing exempt accommodation. Unfortunately, over the last two years rogue landlords have continued to exploit vulnerable people, but I am delighted that the Government have taken up the regulations we had prepared before the general election. I urge individuals who wish to respond to the consultation to do so without delay. Will the Secretary of State make a statement after Whitsun on what action the Government will take, how many responses have been received and when we can expect the regulations to be brought into force, so that vulnerable tenants do not continue to be exploited?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I commend the Leader of the House for her very full answers, but there are many Members standing and to get everyone in we will need very short questions and short answers, please.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
As short as possible, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Leader of the House will know that I have raised the issue of crossbows in this Chamber before. They are murderous devices in the wrong hands. In response, the Government have helpfully tabled amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill, yet I have still received no information, despite the Prime Minister’s promise that I would, about the response to the consultation. It is now well over a year old, yet we have heard nothing. May we have a statement to the House on the Government’s response to the consultation on crossbow ownership and sale as soon as possible please?